Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 6336 Case file # 95-251022 .

Material Examiner: Malone (RO

Remarks: After research it has been determined that the original incoming letter (with original

Laboratory number sticker 30131091) or copy of incoming letter (with original Laboratory number sticker 30131091) of Examiner Malone (RQ) is missing from the cas

file at the time of review by the Independent Scientist.

Case resulted in trial, transcript available.

cap fy

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 2:30 PM (Time), 03/14/2001 (Date)

File i 95-251022

Laboratory #(s): 20827032

30131091 Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed RQ xa a ; a oO TN o xo a a a

a a a

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of:

Testimony Date(s): Pages:

Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number: 20827032 Date: Oct 25, 1982 Laboratory Number: 30131091 Date: Feb 1, 1983 Laboratory Number: Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ

Laboratory Number: — 20827032 30131091

Page i of 4

: Initials: Sur

cen fy

Was any other material reviewed? XQ Yes 0 No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material; Submitting agency letters (dated 8-24-82 and 1-27-83)

Results of Review

File #: 95-251022 {tem or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q5, K1, K2, K5-K7

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

» Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the

methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? QY¥es XOQNo 2 Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s} supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? aYes XONo Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

0 Transcript not avaitable.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? XO Yes ONo 0 Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? XO Yes QNo Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? XO Yes QNo Unable to Determine

of 4

Initials: Su

Page

Comments {Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-251022

#1; The testing of the duct tape was performed appopniately, with one exception. The warp and fill fibers,in the tape from the victim's residence should have been compared to the fibers in the duct tape recovered from the

suspect's car.

The examiner had test procedures available to him at the time that he could have utilized. By performing melting point, for example, he could have determined if the beige fibers were the same type of nylon. This cannot be determined from the testing he performed, as he has testified in other cases, Also, cross-sections should have been prepared of the beige fibers to compare. One cannot always determine if two fibers have the same cross-

‘section from a longitudianl view as was performed in this case.

Review completed at: 3:45 PM (Time), 03/14/2001 (Date) Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 1:15 hours

Thereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, eee manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a “ of___4 __pages.

we hade— 03/14/2001

(Signature) (Date)

Additional Comments (Set forth by question #, if applicable)

File #; 95-251022

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the

documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses the

abbreviation “ftfvtc” in his fiber comparison. This abbreviation is difficult to interpret.

Page 4 of 4

Initials: _ 4 ge